Wednesday, March 9, 2011

The title of this post is weak, we know. We spent a long time crafting a clever, eye-catching one so that the one regular reader of Trading Kellys would spot it on her feed--because this is a fascinating topic, even if you won't get that from the post. But we failed, and are running with this bland title.

So, everyone knows that the human genome has been mapped & opened up the world to comprehensive genetic testing. (Or not: the editors haven't stayed up on this, but let's assume it's true for now.) You, a person on this planet, could have your genes tested for genetic disorders.

Except, maybe not. The U.S.D.A. needs to figure out if you actually need a doctor to tell you it's okay to test your own genes. There are hearings going on right now to figure out:

Agenda: On March 8 and 9, 2011, the committee will discuss and make recommendations on scientific issues concerning direct to consumer (DTC) genetic tests that make medical claims. The scientific issues to be discussed include:

(1) The risks and benefits of making clinical genetic tests available for direct access by a consumer without the involvement of a clinician (i.e., without a prescription). The discussion will include consideration of the benefits and risks of direct access for different tests or categories of tests that would support differences in the regulatory approach. Clinical genetic test categories that have been proposed to be offered directly to consumers include:

In order to find out what you are---your genes being you; to find out what diseases you may be prey to; to find out what drugs will work for you: You might need a prescription. Which means you'll need a doctor. Which means you'll need insurance or pay out of pocket; which means you'll have to wait however long it takes for an appointment; which means the doctor might not give you a prescription.

Consider that: Not only do you have to go through the time & expense of getting the prescription to find out the most instrumental things about yourself: You might not be allowed to do it at all.

This is a problem. One editor has sufficiently bitched to the world about needing a prescription for an A-1C test. It's just par for the course for the current state of medicine. You are expected to be a lapdog to your doctor; to have no ownership over your health; to take the pills you are told to take, eat what you are told to eat, and return as often as feasible for the tests you are told to take--and expected to be grateful for the privilege.*

It's criminal. As the illustrious author Igna Muscio has written: "Western medicine . . . is based on a law opposed to the one the rest of the universe seems to go by, namely: Healing Has Nothing to Do with You, Just Follow the Directions on the Label."

*Certain other proprietors of Trading Kellys are welcome to write about the regulatory capture, public-choice theory, and other economic incentives that are fueling these regulations. This editor has to go back to work.

Friday, March 4, 2011

There's some circumstantial evidence that Charlie Sheen---though off all drugs except Charlie Sheen---is onto primal. Perhaps ketones are contributing to his (seeming) mania.

We reserve judgment on this until more evidence comes in. But will say: We have experienced mild mania* ourselves brought on by high levels of ketones. It's an often-reported side effect of deep ketosis. (Or it's never reported at all, and was only an excuse for our editors to eat butter-soaked mashed sweet potatoes every night at 11 p.m. to help get to sleep.)

But it's been a while for the Trading Kellys team since we've cut out all the booze & dark chocolate long enough to turn the ketone strip purple. The Charlie Sheen episode has us motivated, though, to see if a little low-carb stretch could get the #tigerblood running & #adonisdna expressed.

*Editor's wife's note: Mr. Sheen probably has some psychological disorder. It's impossible to know, of course, & Trading Kellys does not mean to underplay, in any way, nor glorify, his potential mental-health issues.

My illustrious co-editor pointed out that the NY Times had the unabashed gall to publish an article saying that not all saturated fats are bad:

And while it’s true that most of the fats in virgin coconut oil are saturated, opinions are changing on whether saturated fats are the arterial villains theywere made out to be. “I think we in the nutrition field are beginning to say that saturated fats are not so bad, and the evidence that said they were is not so strong,” Dr. Brenna said.

Plus, it turns out, not all saturated fats are createdequal. Marisa Moore, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, a nonprofit association of nutritionists, said, “Different types of saturated fats behave differently.”

Wow. Look at that. Nutritionists backing off the "saturated fats are evil" myth.

Of course, instead of embracing the overwhelming research that saturated fats are positively correlated with good physical & mental health, and longevity---and making a real attempt to stop the freight train of awful advice to replace saturated fats with polyunsaturated ones---they couch their new insight. Saturated fats are "not so bad," and "not all created equal," and "behave differently."